January 17, 2014

Paul Krugman, Vanquished

By Jon N. Hall
It is always satisfying when one sees an insufferable jerk get his just comeuppance. And when the jerk is a bully who thinks he's always right and all others, save his acolytes, are not only "always wrong" but "knaves and fools" as well, then it is especially sweet to see the jerk shown, on point after point, to have been consistently wrong.
In "Krugtron the Invincible," economics historian Niall Ferguson uses Paul Krugman's own words to filet the Keynesian economist. Ferguson's three-part, 7,421-word article is a pleasure to read, and not only for those interested in economics.
But on economics, perhaps the most devastating of Ferguson's takedowns is in Part 1 where he details Krugman's serial predictions about the imminent collapse of the euro currency. Ferguson provides quotes from no fewer than eleven articles, from April 2010 through July 2012, to demonstrate how wrong the economist was. Ever the gentlemen, Ferguson concedes:

Now, I happen to be rather a euro-skeptic myself. I opposed the creation of the euro and predicted at the outset that the experiment of monetary union without fiscal integration would ultimately degenerate. But today, as you may have noticed, the euro is still intact.

In Part 2, Ferguson asks why Krugman had been "so bold" in predicting the collapse of the euro. The reason is because Krugman "had so completely failed to predict the U.S. financial crisis." If one can't predict, one can't be taken too seriously as a scientist." So Krugman had to get out front on the euro crisis. Hence: the need to be bold.
In Parts 1 and 2 Ferguson makes an air-tight case that Professor Krugman has been quite deficient in his analyses and predictions of late: "One might have expected a little more humility from an economist who so clearly failed to understand the nature of the biggest financial crisis of his lifetime until after it had happened."
Those who have no use for Krugman the economist will find the first two parts delicious in their itemizing of his bad predictions. But in Part 3, Ferguson goes beyond economics, making a wider appeal. In it, our Scottish historian looks at the nature of history and the place of the "public intellectual" in modern society. And he states why he is responding to Krugman's vendetta against him:

You may ask: Why have I taken the trouble to do this? I have three motives. The first is to illuminate the way the world really works, as opposed to the way Krugman and his beloved New Keynesian macroeconomic models say it works. The second is to assert the importance of humility and civility in public as well as academic discourse. And the third, frankly, is to teach him the meaning of the old Scottish regimental motto: nemo me impune lacessit ("No one attacks me with impunity").

With this meticulous article, Ferguson conducts a master class on how to respond to one's critics and intellectual enemies; I highly recommend it. There are hyperlinks out the wazoo, and as for Krugtron the Invincible, there's no place to hide.
The reason people dislike Krugman is not because he's a left-winger, nor because he's consistently wrong about matters economic. Rather, they dislike him because he has no manners; the guy's a jerk. If Krugman delivered his opinions like a gentlemen, readers would consider them, perhaps lament that he is again wrong, and then move on. But Krugman is a piece of work; his nastiness might remind one of MSNBC's Ed Schultz or Martin Bashir. One of the more compelling parts of Ferguson's article is when he turns to the loss of civility in public discourse. Krugman is poison to that discourse.
The word "fraud" does not appear in "Krugtron the Invincible"; Ferguson is much too decorous and gentlemanly for that. But if Krugman were to be called a fraud, it should not be because he's so frequently wrong; it should be because he positions himself as the authority. Delivering his pronouncements ex cathedra, Krugman seems to have some insatiable need to be infallible. Because he must have no doubt about himself, he must have nothing but doubt about others, and even impugn their motives.
Economics, if it is a science, is certainly not a complete one. Economists are continually being surprised by how the economy behaves. (Behave, economy; that's not how you're supposed to act.) Nonetheless, we must make sense of the economy. And to do that, we use economics, deficient though it is at prediction.
In this time of economic uncertainty, when Congress has run four back-to-back trillion-dollar deficits while the Fed created other trillions out of nothing, economists need to possess at least a smidgeon of self-doubt, a modicum of modesty.

Source:  http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/01/m-paul_krugman_vanquished.html#.Utl70SfNaCc.gmail

Utterly brilliant and no-one comes to mind that is more deserving of this dressing down than the sanctimonious Paul Krugman. 

Read Niall Fergusons' entire article here: http://www.niallferguson.com/journalism/miscellany/krugtron-the-invincible-part-1

Oh, it's long, but delicious!  

Since the passing of Milton Friedman, man, has Thomas Sowell taken over the mantle. I love this incredibly intelligent man's clear and forthright prose.

De Blasio & the ‘trickle-down’ lie

By Thomas Sowell

January 9, 2014

In his inaugural speech, Mayor de Blasio denounced people “on the far right” who “continue to preach the virtue of trickle-down economics.” According to de Blasio, “They believe that the way to move forward is to give more to the most fortunate, and that somehow the benefits will work their way down to everyone else.”
If there is ever a contest for the biggest lie in politics, this one should be a top contender.
While there have been all too many lies told in politics, most have some little tiny fraction of truth in them, to make them seem plausible. But the “trickle-down” lie is 100 percent lie.
It should win the contest both because of its purity — no contaminating speck of truth — and because of how many people have repeated it over the years, without any evidence being asked for or given.
Years ago, this column challenged anybody to quote any economist outside of an insane asylum who had ever advocated this “trickle-down” theory. Some readers said that somebody said that somebody else had advocated a “trickle-down” policy. But they could never name that somebody else and quote them.
De Blasio is by no means the first politician to denounce this non-existent theory. Back in 2008, presidential candidate Barack Obama attacked what he called “an economic philosophy” that “says we should give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else.”
Let’s do something completely unexpected: Let’s stop and think. Why would anyone advocate that we “give” something to A in hopes that it would trickle down to B? Why in the world would any sane person not give it to B and cut out the middleman? But all this is moot, because there was no trickle-down theory about giving something to anybody in the first place.
The “trickle-down” theory can’t be found in even the most voluminous scholarly studies of economic theories — including J.A. Schumpeter’s monumental “History of Economic Analysis,” more than a thousand pages long and printed in very small type.
It’s not just in politics that the non-existent “trickle-down” theory is found. It has been attacked in The New York Times, in The Washington Post and by professors at prestigious American universities — and even as far away as India. Yet none of those who denounce a “trickle-down” theory can quote anybody who actually advocated it.
The book “Winner-Take-All Politics” refers to “the ‘trickle-down’ scenario that advocates of helping the have-it-alls with tax cuts and other goodies constantly trot out.” But no one who actually trotted out any such scenario was cited, much less quoted.
One of the things that provoke the left into bringing out the “trickle-down” bogeyman is any suggestion that there are limits to how high they can push tax rates on people with high incomes, without causing repercussions that hurt the economy as a whole.
But, contrary to Mayor de Blasio, this is not a view confined to people on the “far right.” Such liberal icons as Presidents John Kennedy and Woodrow Wilson likewise argued that tax rates can be so high that they have an adverse effect on the economy.
In his 1919 address to Congress, Wilson warned that, at some point, “high rates of income and profits taxes discourage energy, remove the incentive to new enterprise, encourage extravagant expenditures and produce industrial stagnation with consequent unemployment and other attendant evils.”
In a 1962 address to Congress, Kennedy said, “it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now.”
This was not a new idea. John Maynard Keynes said, back in 1933, that “taxation may be so high as to defeat its object,” that in the long run, a reduction of the tax rate “will run a better chance, than an increase, of balancing the budget.” And Keynes was not on “the far right” either.
The time is long overdue for people to ask themselves why it is necessary for those on the left to make up a lie if what they believe in is true

Source: http://nypost.com/2014/01/09/de-blasio-the-trickle-down-lie/

I have covered in earlier posts the difference in the pablum of discussing higher tax rates, vs the actual goal of governments, higher tax revenues. 

Let's review: Which is better, higher tax rate with lower revenue and lower GDP growth, or lower tax rate with higher tax revenue and higher GDP growth? 

The answer lies in the difference between the Obamination economy we live in now, and theReagan economy that spurred 30 years of growth.

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." ~ John Adams, 'Argument in Defense of the Soldiers in the Boston Massacre Trials,' December 1770

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Riding to Utopia…

Who would have anticipated the day when the most moderate elected official in city government would be Scott M. Stringer — the Upper West Side uber-liberal and protégé of left-wing gadfly Rep. Jerrold Nadler of Manhattan?
Well, yesterday that day arrived. Thank you, term limits.
For it was term limits that powered the sea change evident on the frosty steps of City Hall yesterday afternoon — perhaps the most wrenching shift in governing philosophies, attitudes and priorities New York has experienced in recent memory.
A new mayor. A new comptroller. A new public advocate. All of the left, and soon to be joined by a fundamentally new City Council — perhaps to be led by a hard-core activist from East Harlem who thinks Gov. Cuomo, a liberal icon in most quarters, is actually an Albany-based iteration of Republican Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin.
And not one of them has ever had a private-sector job of any consequence — or a public-sector one, for that matter. And of them all, only one — Stringer — has been around long enough to have absorbed a sense of the limits of government.
So, folks: Can you spell “bumpy ride?”
A caveat: Inauguration Day is always about rhetoric; about refining and reinforcing campaign promises, about what Mario Cuomo used to call the “poetry of government.”
The heavy lifting — the “prose,” as the former governor put it — is to be found in the dense grey documents of governance: the budgets, the briefing papers, the testimony that agency heads and others will deliver at City Council hearings and in Albany.
And, of course, in City Hall whispers, over power-lunch place settings and in eyes-only memos prepared by lobbyists and other special-interest representatives as the new administration, and the new City Council, take shape.
But what of yesterday’s rhetoric? There was a lot of it — mundane for the most part, some of it a little silly and just about every word calculated to create an effect of one sort or another.
One speaker compared New York City to a “plantation,” about as ahistorical an allusion as can be imagined, but one that speaks to a sense of grievance so profound, and so bizarre, that no mayor could ever assuage it. But Mayor de Blasio is going to have to try, because it’s widely held.
Comptroller Stringer himself promised to harness the power of his office — by implication, the investment influence of the city’s massive pension funds — to solving social problems. This puts sets his agenda on a collision course with his fiduciary responsibilities; here comes big trouble, in other words.
And former President Bill Clinton spoke gravely on income inequality — and amusingly. After all, has there ever been a president so intimate with the top of the 1 Percent than the Man from Hope?
Which means that Clinton will soon find de Blasio’s hand in his pocket — if the new mayor has his way, of course.
“Now I know there are those who think that what I said during the campaign was just rhetoric, just ‘political talk’ in the interest of getting elected,” said de Blasio Wednesday.
Don’t you believe it, he declared — reiterating his pledge to seek higher taxes on the 1 Percent, as well as stiffer levies on the cost of doing business in New York through paid-sick-leave mandates and such.
And all of this is will happen in service to an over-arching goal, he declared:
“When I said we would take dead aim at the Tale of Two Cities, I meant it. . . We will give life to the hope of so many in our city. We will succeed as One City. We know this won’t be easy; it will require all that we can muster. And it . . . will be accomplished by all of us — millions of everyday New Yorkers in every corner of our city.”
Utopia on the Hudson? Really?
Source: http://nypost.com/2014/01/02/riding-to-utopia/


Get your bowl 'o popcorn folks- this is gonna be funny to watch! (I live in NJ) We know the crime numbers, the jobs numbers.....let's compare in four years. Woot Woot!

From 1958, Leonard Read's delightful story, "I, Pencil," has become a classic, and deservedly so. Basic credo: the idea that human freedom requires private property, free competition, and severely limited government.

"I, Pencil: My Family Tree as told to Leonard E. Read"

In my opinion, every Citizen, every High School Senior and College/University student should be reading this and spend a few days discussing. It would be to our societies benefit. 

READ IT HERE:  http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/rdPncl1.html

Ramdom thoughts, venting really.

NO, OBAMA VOTERS Jesus did NOT believe in wealth redistribution 

PAUL: "If a man will not work, he shall not eat." 

2 Thessalonians 3:10

(See how one, anyone can quote an individual piece of a whole thought, and make it fit their "model". Like statistics. Charts, Graphs, Websites. All information can be manipulated. The key is to learn to reason for yourself. Gather information from various sources, then and only then form your own opinion. Trust no one individual OR GROUP. Think FOR YOUR darn self!!)

In a nutshell: 

Capitalism is figuring out how to get what your neighbor has, and then repeating those life behavior lessons. 
Socialism is about how to get that neighbor to lose what he has and have it given to? Me? You? Are you sure?

How to fix the problems:

Spurred on by Mark Levin and others, there is a grass-roots conservative movement to convene an Article V convention of the States to amend the Constitution by enacting so-called "Liberty Amendments" that would eliminate the popular election of Senators, require a balanced federal budget, prohibit the federal government from any activity conducted by the states (including healthcare), effectively eliminate the commerce clause and the general welfare clause, enact term limits on judges and enable the States to overturn judicial decisions, and impose nation-wide voter ID laws. I agree with all these ideas. It's common sense. We are after all a Nation of Laws after all, right? Right?

The Environment: Respecting and Protecting our Ecosystem
      Obviously a polluted ecosystem does not discriminate against political affiliations.  Humanity requires a healthy environment above all other concerns; as clean water, air, and healthy soil are essential to our survival. That we can all agree on. However, the modern environmental movement seems to have been hijacked by the elite who show no desire to protect the water, air, and soil.  Environmentalists have been made to believe that CO2 is the most dangerous element responsible for "Global Warming", and despite the establishment's constant betrayal of facts, many still put faith in the elite's proposed solutions that do nothing to reduce real pollutants.
      The climate change debate has become the only environmental topic discussed in the mainstream and appears to be yet another example of manufactured political division. Environmentally-conscious progressives know they have been repeatedly lied to by the establishment left about everything from free-trade agreements, to the wars, to GMO foods, yet they seem to have a very difficult time questioning the man-made "global warming" theory and the elite's proposed solutions.
      At the very least, eyebrows should be raised since “hacked” emails exposed that the science data had been manipulated to fit the theory.  Alarm bells should go off when we learn that, as Vice President, Gore designed the proposed Cap and Trade system with Enron’s criminal CEO Ken “Kenny Boy” Lay years before the global warming propaganda had begun. A full blown revolt should take place knowing that the scandalous international Banksters and Big Oil (including BP) have shaped Cap and Trade to line their pockets. Finally, many of the proposed provisions appear to tax personal choices while major corporate polluters are exempt. Regardless of what we believe, it certainly appears that climate change fits the establishment's problem-reaction-solution model of social engineering and we should all beware.
      Additionally, the global-warming-is-a-hoax crowd must concede that fossil fuels are still dirty and have a major impact on the environment regardless of whether they effect climate change.  The environmentalists who recently opposed fracture drilling in Pennsylvania did so because the practice contaminates ground water, not because natural gas effects climate change.  These protesters were nonpartisan Americans.  We must unite against practices that provably damage our health and the health of our ecosystem.  These can include oil spills and subsequent chemical spraying, industrial agriculture and factory farms, dirty coal and depleted uranium energy plants, deliberate poisoning of public water with sodium fluoride, and the production, promotion, and disposal of dangerous pharmaceuticals to name a few.

Common Ground: True pollution is obvious. "Truth is uniform and narrow; it constantly exists, and does not seem to require so much an active energy, as a passive aptitude of the soul in order to encounter it. But error is endlessly diversified; it has no reality, but is the pure and simple creation of the mind that invents it." - Ben Franklin.   

We must unite to confront the provable threats to human health and the integrity of our environment, we must do it! We must be good and faithful stewards of the environment and the eco-systems. 

That does not mean that I support a "carbon tax" or any other way worded socialist wealth redistribution scheme. F*!!!!!

China, not our friend. If you must buy a Chinese product, make it clothing. Food, no, no, no. Stay away on everything to the best of your ability. 

Read this book:

Death by China: Confronting the Dragon – A Global Call to Action is a 2011 non-fiction book by economics professor Peter Navarro and Greg Autry

HERE'S A COMMON SENSE THOUGHT: If you can't explain the 'pause', you can't explain the cause...

I can’t believe most Americans are so gullible to believe the global warming hoax and the manufactured “consensus” paraded as faux science in the face of real scientific evidence to the contrary.

China is currently viewed as one of the most polluted countries on earth. Chinese food inspection controls take a backseat in that country's calculated efforts to unload its pollution-based food products across North America and beyond. If you value your health, when purchasing apple juice, fish and shellfish products (to name but a few), give 'Made in China" a wide berth.

China—such a large country, with 1.3 billion people using 45 percent of the coal used in the world, 50 percent of all the cement and 40 percent of all the copper.

 

One picture on the National Debt

The only way to dig ourselves out of this hole is thru growth. Growth aka like in the Reagan years.Otherwise, not anyone over 35- but, those younger, are f*cked. It's that simple and it makes me sad, and damned angry.

Brain function 'boosted for days after reading a novel'

Ha! I knew it intuitively! Reading is awesome! 

" Brain function 'boosted for days after reading a novel"

Reading a gripping novel causes biological changes in the brain which last for days as the mind is transported into the body of the protagonist

Being pulled into the world of a gripping novel can trigger actual, measurable changes in the brain that linger for at least five days after reading, scientists have said.

The new research, carried out at Emory University in the US, found that reading a good book may cause heightened connectivity in the brain and neurological changes that persist in a similar way to muscle memory.
The changes were registered in the left temporal cortex, an area of the brain associated with receptivity for language, as well as the the primary sensory motor region of the brain.
Neurons of this region have been associated with tricking the mind into thinking it is doing something it is not, a phenomenon known as grounded cognition - for example, just thinking about running, can activate the neurons associated with the physical act of running.
“The neural changes that we found associated with physical sensation and movement systems suggest that reading a novel can transport you into the body of the protagonist,” said neuroscientist Professor Gregory Berns, lead author of the study.
“We already knew that good stories can put you in someone else’s shoes in a figurative sense. Now we’re seeing that something may also be happening biologically.”
21 students took part in the study, with all participants reading the same book -  Pompeii, a 2003 thriller by Robert Harris, which was chosen for its page turning plot.
“The story follows a protagonist, who is outside the city of Pompeii and notices steam and strange things happening around the volcano,” said Prof Berns. “It depicts true events in a fictional and dramatic way. It was important to us that the book had a strong narrative line.”
Over 19 days the students read a portion of the book in the evening then had fMRI scans the following morning. Once the book was finished, their brains were scanned for five days after.
The neurological changes were found to have continued for all the five days after finishing, proving that the impact was not just an immediate reaction but has a lasting influence.
“Even though the participants were not actually reading the novel while they were in the scanner, they retained this heightened connectivity,” added Prof Berns. “We call that a ‘shadow activity,’ almost like a muscle memory.”

 Source: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/brain-function-boosted-for-days-after-reading-a-novel-9028302.html

1 Corinthians 3:7 (NIV)

1 Corinthians 3:7 (NIV) 

So neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow.

The passage is from the apostle Paul’s first letter to the church at Corinth. Paul wrote the letter to a church in turmoil, one that was having a lot of trouble finding peace and unity between its Jewish and Gentile believers.
Paul addresses two factions within the church: those whom he’d converted and taught, and those who’d been converted and taught by another church leader named Apollos. These factions seemed to view Paul and Apollos as rivals, though Paul’s response appears to indicate that he and Apollos didn’t view themselves that way at all.
Here’s what Paul wrote to the church at Corinth:

What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe—as the Lord has assigned to each his task. I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God has been making it grow. So neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow. (1 Corinthians 3:5–7)

So, here’s the big idea that changed my perspective and approach to leadership: I am nothing. That sounds bleak, but hang with me. Maybe I plant seeds with my group. Maybe I lead men in business. Perhaps, I water the seeds someone else has planted. Either way, I don’t grow anyone . . . ever. God does.
I’m just there to serve him. He’s the one in charge.
Experiences that used to frustrate me become opportunities for God to grow me.